/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2402359]

is science an art?

and psychology for that matter as well

[Anonymous No.2402370]

>>2402359
THAT PIC MAKING ME RAGE FUUU I HATE THAT WEBSITE
LOGICALFALLACYFUUUUCK

Why can't they fucking accept that some things are "absolutely" wrong and some things aren't absolutely wrong? Damn it.

oh and on topic math is an art
psychology not an art, and around here not regarded as a science either

[Anonymous No.2402376]

in this day in age i wouldn't call it right, but absolute morality definitely not. morals change all the time, take incest for example it was a part of culture we now scorn (for the most part), and likewise rape, however bad it may seem now, could by some series of events become acceptable.

[Anonymous No.2402382]

Morals are as universal as human nature. We shared the value "human prosperity and wellbeing is good", and on that basis alone we can form an ethical system.

And on that basis, molesting children for fun is wrong. The harm far outweighs the benefit.

So, morals aren't *absolute*. But they're only as varying or malleable as human nature is.

[Anonymous No.2402396]

There are no fucking morals. Welcome to the real world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_cannibalism

Nature doesn't give a FUCK.

[Anonymous No.2402405]

>>2402376
i responded to pic rather than question lol
i guess i have to answer question now though.
In the traditional sense of the word no,
in a relative sense of the word yes.
an art is after all the use of the creative brain (in sciences case in particular) coupled with the logical brain to produce something original.
where do people think scientists come up with these theories and ideas? do they pull them out of their ass maybe? no its their creative brain working with their logical brain to attain a coherent solution to a problem that can be supported with math and/or observable phenomena.

[Anonymous No.2402406]

>morality
>absolute
>mfw

[Anonymous No.2402414]

>>2402396
see
>>2402382


Moral good is based on the effect on human society. Bad actions harm society. Good actions benefit society. Bad people are those who want to take bad actions.

So on the basis of "how does it affect society", we can form a pretty complete ethical system.

[Anonymous No.2402416]

>>2402359
Science is not an art. The purpose of art is to invoke feelings and associated ideas in an audience. The purpose of science is to for quantitative models of the observable universe. They are completely dissimilar things.

[Anonymous No.2402429]

>>2402414
6.895x10^9 is too many people. We will soon run out of available energy. Killing at least 2/3 of those people would be best for society and earth. Are you going to do it?

[Anonymous No.2402439]

>>2402396
>case of cannibalism in which a female organism kills and consumes a male of the same species before, during, or after copulation. On rare occasion, these roles are reversed.
>On rare occasion, these roles are reversed.
Then how are babies made?

[Anonymous No.2402442]

>>2402429
>6.895x10^9 is too many people. We will soon run out of available energy. Killing at least 2/3 of those people would be best for society and earth. Are you going to do it?
Your conclusions are based on very poor assumptions, and no data. We're not starving, and our population is projected to peak and go into decline in the latter half of this century anyway. I deny that killing 2/3 of people would do more good than harm to human society.

[Anonymous No.2402444]

>>2402439
External reproduction, like eggs?

[Anonymous No.2402462]

that is like asking what is more reprehensible?

Murder and rape? or rape and murder?.

[Anonymous No.2402471]

>>2402382 We shared the value "human prosperity and wellbeing is good", and on that basis alone we can form an ethical system.
In the most primordial part of our nature, prosperity etc... is good when it's the people in one's own social group or class or civilization or whatever who are doing well. If your group can do better at the cost of another, that's acceptable to most people even if they don't admit it.

It just depends on who you see as a part of your group.

[Anonymous No.2402501]

society defines morals.

societies among any species differ, by definition.

morals from one society are only universal to that society. as soon as you step into another society, that old moral may not exist.

[Anonymous No.2402540]

i didnt read shit. some fag on my facebook told me to look at this.

Regardless of what you believe, the morals that society believes in dominate your beliefs and your actions. The few that are not dominated by society are the criminally insane.

[Anonymous No.2402588]

Science is not an art, it's a tool. Some of the things that tool has helped create are art, others not so much.

---

Whether molesting a child for fun is absolutely morally wrong depends on your definition of "molesting". If it makes the child uncomfortable, tickling his or her tummy or lifting him or her to help them see a parade could be qualified as molestation.

They are things done for fun, and they could be morally right.

[Anonymous No.2403736]

>>2402588

[NEWS AT 11 No.2403875]

Creationists using false dichotomies to prove their irrational belief system. In other news, water is wet.